It’s very easy to have a mentality that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. I often find myself guilty of this mindset when voting, especially when one candidate on the ballot is involved in something that I find to be corrupt while the other candidate is merely an “outsider.” Likewise, the United States has believed, in many of its recent conflicts with other nations, that the enemy of the enemy is the friend. This thought has often put this nation in traps deeper than it has ever been in before. If the Obama administration is not careful, America may fall into the same trap in Syria.

For those of my readers who think that America goes into war in order to promote “democratic ideals” and “nation-building,” there have been many wars where this country did nothing to prevent corruption and/or dictatorship. Look at Iran in 1953, where an American-backed Shah replaced a leader elected by the people of Iran. Look at Vietnam, where America backed South Vietnamese leadership that was corrupt. Look at Chile in 1973, when an American-backed military dictator overthrew a government with a president elected by the people of Chile. Look at Afghanistan in the 1980’s, where America supported a man by the name of Osama bin Laden against the Soviet Union. Even in wars where the U.S. seems to promote “democratic ideals,” those “democracies” have been ineffective ones like Iraq and Afghanistan.

With this horrendous record of promoting democratic ideals and building nations unilaterally, this nation would be arrogant and ignorant of its history if it thought that Syria would be any better. Even if the Assad regime were overthrown, America’s record of nation-building seems to indicate that Syria would be a mess for years, if not decades, if America got involved.

Some argue that America should help resolve the conflict due to the outrageous atrocities performed by the Assad regime. Since the United Nations seems clearly incapable of resolving the conflict, the United States should then take action, critics would say. This logic ignores one fact that has been rarely covered by the American media: the rebels have committed war crimes as well. Human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, have reported on human rights abuses that have happened on both sides of the Syrian Civil War. The United Nations has exercised caution throughout its investigation, in large part because it knows that both sides of the conflict are involved in some level of war crimes. These reports and investigations show that the rebels, while fighting a brutal Assad regime, may not be promoting free and democratic ideals after all. If that’s the case, it’s not worth risking a single life, American or Syrian, for “change” that may not change anything beyond the head of state.

Once again, the change that America has unilaterally brought to many nations for the last sixty years has been for the worse. Maybe the Americans will find a way to succeed at government-building after so many failures, but with the way this nation is once again looking to get haphazardly involved in conflict, this is doubtful.